Author
Topic: Does time tick? (Read 24044 times)

LeeE, you are definitely correct in that there are a symmetry to time and distance, but that symmetry seems to exist with density too? If we were on a neutronstar for example, not that we are, but if, time would slow down for us considerable, as measured from a observer outside that gravitational field. Shouldn't there also be a Lorentz contraction observed in that gravitywell, thinking of it? I find your idea interesting but you will need to explain why 'matter/density' have the same effect I think.

The relationship between speed through space and the rate of time is simple and direct; the sum of the movement vectors through time and though space always equals 'c'. Thus, when stationary the spatial movement vector = 0 and the movement vector through time = 'c', but as the spatial movement vector becomes non-zero the temporal movement vector must decrease to maintain the same summed vector of 'c'.

That is a very good explanation LeeE. I had never before thought of that kind of vector analysis but it is simple and direct, as you say. But the same relationship would exist with the Lorentz version of space and time.

what if time is at a constant speed? would it mean speeding up to times' speed would make time stop to you since its not flowing past you at its rate? Would it mean that if I was to stop dead right now in this point, in the expanding universe, then I would age rapidly? Maybe time is speed and we measure it like we would measure a flow of water; the more we flow with the water the less pressure we measure ( to us the flow seems to be slowing down the faster we move with it). Time does not slow down the faster we move to the speed of light but rather we are catching up to the speed of time and therefore time effects become less irreverent.

Maybe stars collapse tears into the fabric that contains time thus allowing time to flow into a timeless pocket. Who knows just maybe "The Big Bang" was a result of another dimension ripping (aka black hole) and allowing time and material to flow from it to our timeless pocket.

Shouldn't there also be a Lorentz contraction observed in that gravity well, thinking of it?

I can understand time slowing in a gravity well, but can't quite get length contraction to work. If it is like the Lorentz contraction, it would be only in one direction. I'm not sure what GR says about contraction in a gravity well; I don't remember reading anything about that.

what if time is at a constant speed? would it mean speeding up to times' speed would make time stop to you since its not flowing past you at its rate? Would it mean that if I was to stop dead right now in this point, in the expanding universe, then I would age rapidly? Maybe time is speed and we measure it like we would measure a flow of water; the more we flow with the water the less pressure we measure ( to us the flow seems to be slowing down the faster we move with it). Time does not slow down the faster we move to the speed of light but rather we are catching up to the speed of time and therefore time effects become less irreverent.

I don't think that is quite mainstream thinking; but it makes just as much sense to me as does the mainstream version.

LeeE, you are definitely correct in that there are a symmetry to time and distance, but that symmetry seems to exist with density too? If we were on a neutronstar for example, not that we are, but if, time would slow down for us considerable, as measured from a observer outside that gravitational field. Shouldn't there also be a Lorentz contraction observed in that gravitywell, thinking of it? I find your idea interesting but you will need to explain why 'matter/density' have the same effect I think.

The wiki article on gravtational time dilation says:

Quote

Clocks which are far from massive bodies (or at higher gravitational potentials) run faster, and clocks close to massive bodies (or at lower gravitational potentials) run slower. This is because gravitational time dilation is manifested in accelerated frames of reference or, by virtue of the equivalence principle, in the gravitational field of massive objects.

Which basically says both forms of time-dilation are due to your inertial mass being equivalent to your gravitational mass.

Another way of looking at it is that space is distorted in a gravity well and this distortion, in changing the shape of space, changes it's size too, so everything moving within that distorted region of space is effectively moving further, equivalent to moving faster. Don't forget that even if you're sitting still within that gravity well, all the atoms and molecules that everything is made from will still be moving.

Planck scale units can be derived from solving for the point where a quantum theory of gravitation is needed (for some, but not all, formalisms). What actually happens at the Planck scale is quite another story — we don't have the ability to do experiments at that level. Planck's original determination happened before QM, and were just a convenient unit system from setting c, G and hbar to 1. So take any statement that says the Planck time is the smallest unit of time with a quantum of salt.

I liked this definition, simple and clear. If time 'tick', I don't think we ever will measure it anyway, as that have to be under the Planck scale.

The relationship between speed through space and the rate of time is simple and direct; the sum of the movement vectors through time and though space always equals 'c'. Thus, when stationary the spatial movement vector = 0 and the movement vector through time = 'c', but as the spatial movement vector becomes non-zero the temporal movement vector must decrease to maintain the same summed vector of 'c'.

That is a very good explanation LeeE. I had never before thought of that kind of vector analysis but it is simple and direct, as you say. But the same relationship would exist with the Lorentz version of space and time.

Sorry - must have missed this earlier.

The same relationship exists with the Lorentz equations because they are the same thing. Have a quick look at the Lorentz equations and you'll see that they are basically Pythagorus's right-angle triangle solution, where instead of solving for the hypotenuse, you're solving for one of the sides (time), the hypotenuse (c) and other side (speed) being known.

Planck scale units can be derived from solving for the point where a quantum theory of gravitation is needed (for some, but not all, formalisms). What actually happens at the Planck scale is quite another story — we don't have the ability to do experiments at that level. Planck's original determination happened before QM, and were just a convenient unit system from setting c, G and hbar to 1. So take any statement that says the Planck time is the smallest unit of time with a quantum of salt.

I liked this definition, simple and clear. If time 'tick', I don't think we ever will measure it anyway, as that have to be under the Planck scale.

I agree that if time does 'tick' then we wouldn't be able to measure it, although this is not necessarily because it might be less than the Planck time unit. If we move through time in discrete steps, or ticks, then nothing could happen between successive ticks; all we could see would be a sequence of different states, but not the transitions between them.

That things happen in durations smaller than the Planck time unit, or over distances smaller than the Planck length unit is indisputable; if you travel a distance of one Planck length unit and it takes you one Planck time unit to do so, your speed is 'c', so how does anything travel slower than 'c' or accelerate and decelerate?

Yes LeeE, you're perfectly right in saying that if time only allow us consciousness at the 'tick' and that whatever duration there might be between those 'tick' therefore neither will be measurable or observed. And that in fact becomes a 'negative proof' for a 'flow' as that would be the only thing measured under such a system :)

The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks.
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors
and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators,
sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.